SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
You disagree about pot smoking having the same controls as tabacco or are you arguing that tabacco does not have any controls?
Arguing that tobacco is addictive.
You disagree about pot smoking having the same controls as tabacco or are you arguing that tabacco does not have any controls?
Our children should be our number one concern. We have failed large numbers of them. Giving them cutting edge education and a decent chance at anything they want to do in life should be at the top of a short list if things that must be done no matter what.
Somewhat back on topic... In prison, where cigarettes are harder to come by, people fight and kill for them all the time.
Our schools are just fine.
This forum has a tendency to focus on politicking things to death instead of policy recommendations. What do you think will help all these children you think we've failed? Hint: throwing money at inner city education is not an answer.
I have no idea HOW true this is or how frequent something like this would happen, but it passes the smell test so it's a little compelling. However, the test group is convicted felons. And likely convicted of violent crimes. So...
But interesting point. I don't agree, though. The amount of tobacco a person has to ingest in contrast to something like opiates is not at all proportional. Partially because tobacco gives a very slight high and that goes away pretty quick with regular usage.
I also don't smoke. And I wouldn't throw a fit if it was made illegal. But I do think such an action would make legalization of marijuana (which I am all about) more difficult, and you could make an argument that it's legality is grandfathered. This is outside of the whole free to choose yada argument.
Our schools are just fine.
This forum has a tendency to focus on politicking things to death instead of policy recommendations. What do you think will help all these children you think we've failed? Hint: throwing money at inner city education is not an answer.
Ask anyone who smokes how easy it is to quit. I actually know people who used to smoke meth and crack, but still smoke cigarettes.
These days, with all the info we have, most people are only still smoking because they can't quit.
I know many people who have been trying to quit for years. They usually quit for a few weeks, maybe even a few months. They always go back eventually.
I do know a few people that actually quit, but the percentages aren't good.
I don't disagree, but I was a heavy smoker between the ages of 21 and 27. I quit 3 years ago. I did it cold turkey, and it wasn't a big deal. But like you, I know people who have been trying to quit for years.
I love how dems bash republicans for voter id's. If you guys would do it honestly instead of trying to rig the system so often, it wouldn't be an issue. But democrats breaking the law when it comes to voting becomes a republicans hate you crusade.
Right, because all the best teachers are just dying to work in the crappiest areas, crappiest buildings, crappiest tools (books, boards, computers, etc), with the most over crowded classrooms. They'd certainly rather do that instead of working in the best areas, with the best buildings, best equipment and tools, with smaller class sizes.
The primary reason that public housing has (arguably) contributed to poverty lies in its
origins: the Federal urban renewal program. While the policy goal of the 1949 Housing
Act was “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family,”
its public purpose was to eliminate bad housing, not to rehouse slum dwellers. In effect,
urban renewal was to eliminate blight, or declining property values, not to clear and
rebuild slums for their residents. By placing urban renewal under the rubric of a housing
program, downtown development interests gained the much-needed support of progressive
advocates for low-income housing, thereby co-opting their opposition (Weiss, 1980).
Because participation in the Federal urban renewal program was voluntary, the extent
of public housing construction varied across and within regions. Many municipalities,
particularly in suburban areas, chose not to participate in urban renewal, whereas the ones
that did, typically older inner cities with a pre-existing impoverished population, gained
a disproportionate concentration of public housing (Jackson, 1985). Within these cities,
planners tended to locate new housing within or adjacent to black neighborhoods out of
political expediency, as elected officials typically wielded veto power over site selection
(Meyerson and Banfield, 1955; Massey and Denton, 1993; Hirsch, 1983). By the 1960s,
the Brooke Amendment led housing authorities to begin admitting welfare recipients
and other destitute groups, instead of focusing on the working poor (Jackson, 1985). The
result of these political factors was that the low- to medium-density housing of the inner
cities was replaced by high-density towers and formerly working-class neighborhoods
became segregated by race and income on an unprecedented scale (Massey and Denton,
1993). For the first time, the governments were clearly at fault for “making the second
ghetto,” or reinforcing patterns of segregation (Hirsch, 1983).
Right, because all the best teachers are just dying to work in the crappiest areas, crappiest buildings, crappiest tools (books, boards, computers, etc), with the most over crowded classrooms. They'd certainly rather do that instead of working in the best areas, with the best buildings, best equipment and tools, with smaller class sizes.
I agree with franklin that simply improving school is not enough. They've been doing brain research that indicates no matter what your school opportunities are, if you leave in constant stress/fear, learning is extremely difficult or impossible. If you believe that, regardless of education, you will always be treated as second class, the motivation to learn is diminished. If your diet is lacking, you can't form new brain structures adequately. Schooling is only part of the picture, and possibly not even the second-most important part.
I agree with franklin that simply improving school is not enough. They've been doing brain research that indicates no matter what your school opportunities are, if you leave in constant stress/fear, learning is extremely difficult or impossible. If you believe that, regardless of education, you will always be treated as second class, the motivation to learn is diminished. If your diet is lacking, you can't form new brain structures adequately. Schooling is only part of the picture, and possibly not even the second-most important part.
I agree with franklin that simply improving school is not enough. They've been doing brain research that indicates no matter what your school opportunities are, if you leave in constant stress/fear, learning is extremely difficult or impossible. If you believe that, regardless of education, you will always be treated as second class, the motivation to learn is diminished. If your diet is lacking, you can't form new brain structures adequately. Schooling is only part of the picture, and possibly not even the second-most important part.
I completely agree with this. But the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. All of that can be (and is) true, but we are still lacking in funds in a lot of areas.
Outdated textbooks, obsolete technology (why are we even using textbooks, every student should have a tablet connected to the school's WiFi network), decaying buildings, and over crowded classrooms.
I'm not at all surprised when the best teachers choose to teach at the best schools.
Your focus on the trees wastes a lot of resources and does more harm than good. You should try understanding the dynamics instead of shooting political pot shots from your hip.
2 things. First, with regards to the question first posed in the thread: Imagine you're a member of some group or club, for the sake of my audience let's say you're a member of a He-Man Woman Haters Club. First of all you wouldn't allow a non dues paying member to have voting rights. This is why I'm all in favor of having to pay taxes in order to vote. And to take that a step further, I think the more you pay in taxes the more weight your vote should hold. I don't like the idea that Bill Gates' vote can be cancelled out by someone like Precious' mom (although I think we both know who they'd vote for, but you get the point). Secondly, if there was a member of the club who went out and got a girlfriend and started putting up Skeletor posters in the clubhouse, it goes without saying that he'd lose his voting rights and you'd kick him out.
Next point - it looks like the discussion turned towards eduation. If our society wants to fix education, then someone needs to pipe up and tell the parents to step up. I don't care how much money you throw at the problem, nothing's going to work unless the kids are going home to a stable family environment with parents who are involved in their schooling. Same can be said for the opposite: You give a Jewish kid or an Asian kid a tattered 10 yr old textbook, they're still going to ace their midterm.
This is why I hate politics. Long gone are the days of leaders who said what needed to be said, instead we have cowards saying what people want to hear.
That is where my "draconian measures" comment comes up. Short of forcing parents into that role I do not see it happening.
As for the voting ideas you pitched. That would guarantee that the rich forever control this country.
My voting ideas were more just tongue-in-cheek.